what im trying to say here that the ps3 is aiming for the future while the xbox 360 isn't,fact is that the blu ray have more space ,that mean that there going to better games i know right now the ps3 doesnt that games but look at the future Final fantasy,MGS,warhawk little big world ,lairs warhawk , god of war 3 resistance 2 the list go on, but the 360 is living on halo 3 and gears but what going to happen when halo 3 comes out whats next as i say the ps3 is aiming for the future.

Of course developers have to spent more money if they dont want a good game they dont spent money the list that i made of game that is going to coming out is going to cost lots of money to make it and all of those game is big name games

Thunder wrote:Regarding GTA IV, it will be a multiplatform release, so it doesn't really count for the PS3's favor. MGS IV, although still currently dubbed a PS3 exclusive, is heavily rumored to be jumping ship to be multiplatform as well (the same can be said for the next Final Fantasy installment). God of War 3 is untouchable though - Sony isn't letting that go anywhere.

GTA will be released on the PS3 first. The Grand Theft Auto franchise has a distinct loyalty to Sony for giving them their big break. Even when GTA was on computers, it never hit it big until GTAIII on the PS2. That's a fact.

As far as Metal Gear jumping ship, there are ALWAYS rumors like that, regarding Metal Gear. It's purely XBox fans in denial. Substance was the only Metal Gear franchise to hit an XBox console... and it was purely a remake of a game that was already out on the PS2 for over a year. Metal Gear is as Playstation as it gets.

Thunder wrote:Continuing with Halo 3, whether or not your opinion of the series being over hyped or not it is still the #1 machine exclusive game. That is a huge chip on the 360's side. I find it to be one of the best shooters out there (if not the best) and it certainly played a part in my decision to get a 360 over a PS3. What is nice about it is that it can be both a party game as well as a balls out shooter.

I'm not mad at Halo. I totally think its overhyped. I totally think its over-valued by XBox users. But I don't think its a bad game. It's just that you'll never find me drooling all over the franchise; babbling about how it 'expanded the genre' or some sh*t. Thats plain BS. Halo is a great shooter, and the best game on the XBox by far, but its definately not world-shaking stuff.

Thunder wrote:Cost wise it is true that if you deck out your 360 to get all of the benefits of a PS3 it'll cost you more. The thing is that doing this is optional. I don't really have a need for HD DVDs and I am sure a ton of PS3 owners don't use their blu rays enough to justify the $200 mark up on their PS3 for it. Along these lines I don't need a wireless adapter because I just plug into the hardline. I also have no problem paying about $4 a month for Xbox live because it is about $10 better than the PS network.

A blue-ray player, alone, will run you at least $400. At least.

When you take all of the additions that the PS3 has into consideration, the price is actually quite a bargain. As I stated earlier, if money is not an issue, the Playstation 3 clearly has more to offer. Its just the truth.

Thunder wrote:I was a pretty diehard PS2 user but when I jumped to the 360 I haven't really regretted it. Although the better console has yet to establish itself, the 360 has an early lead (look at sales and market share numbers) and I couldn't be more happy with it. Fact is that Sony lost what it meant to be a gaming maching and tried to take over my living room and it ultimately cost them. If they ever go back to what made the PS2 so great - being a versitile, affordable gaming machine that attracts great third party titles - then I'll have no problem swtiching back.

I'm not hating on the 360 at all. My buddy owns one, we play it all the time. But you can't deny that the Playstation 3 comes with far more add-ons, Sony has a better history of picking out fun games to develop, and the XBox 360 is packing less power that will eventually be noticable. Look at how much better the NBA2K7 graphics are on the PS2 than NBA2K1 on the same system. As developers and programmers continue to get familiar with the system, details become far more obvious... and the PS3 clearly packs more of a punch than the 360.

Even my friend who owns a 360 has repeatedly said that the PS3 is the better system and he would have bought one if it didn't cost him as much money.

Just answer me this: if the two systems cost the same amount of money (say, $500), would you have really jumped shipped to the 360 or not...?

It's an honest question. Whether or not you regret jumping is irrelevant: WOULD you have jumped if the prices were equal?

If both systems cost $500, in all honestly I probably wouldn't have bought either and would still be playing my PS2 waiting for a price drop. I suppose technically, then, I wouldn't have jumped ship. As it was, I bought a Premium 360 for about $340 on sale all while people were paying upwards of $1000 for a PS3. It isn't that I am writing off the PS3, I very well may buy one down the road. Currently, however, there is no reason for me to buy one or to even justify spending $600 on one and while I'll never claim that I speak for the majority of consumers the PS3's sales numbers indicate that my sentiments are not alone.

This goes into other points - namely you do get more out of the box with a PS3 than a 360, but it'll cost you. The lack of an option is what is a drawback on Sony's part. A Blu Ray player does cost $400. But I don't want to pay $400 for one, nor do I want to pay $200 dollars for one because DVD is still the standard movie format and I am content with it. When I don't become content with it, and the industry makes a choice between Blu Ray and HD DVD, then I'll go out and get one for a lot less. In the meantime I'll be enjoying the games I got from the money I saved of not buying a movie player I wanted. Here is a fair question: Would you have bought a Blu Ray player if it didn't come with the PS3?

Other stuff:
GTA IV will be released on October 16th for the PS3 and October 17th for the 360. That is splitting hairs. They don't owe Sony too much loyalty, since both 1 and 2 in the series were failures for the PS1.

I think we're on the same page with Halo. It isn't a godsend that a lot of people claim it to be, but it is still a good shooter that does help in the draw of the Xbox.

It is anecdotal evidence that your friend wishes he had a PS3. The majority of people who have a buyer's remorse have come from the Playstation camp. Until there is an actual study done it is all going to be a matter of opionion and taste.

I have to contest the point of picking better titles to develop. Sony has had very an equal amount of first party titles that have been hits. Comparing their titles to Microsoft's team of in house developers you pretty much come up with SOCOM and Gran Turismo versus Halo and Forza. I'd say that's about a draw. Everything else has been third party and Sony has fallen out of favor with many developers due to the difficulty to easily make games for the PS3. Every big title by third part studios to hit the PS3 so far were developed for the 360 then ported over: Call of Duty 3, Elder Scrolls, and every next gen sports game to date. You can't take advantage of a machine's attrubutes if you don't program for it. Having better hardware doesn't always guarentee you to get the best games or the best sales (just look at what the Wii is doing to both of these systems). Either way, Sony has to reprove to me and other people that they will continue to have a stranglehold on great games in order to justify the $600 price tag. Until then, I don't think it has a great case on the 360. But time will tell

If both systems cost $500, in all honestly I probably wouldn't have bought either and would still be playing my PS2 waiting for a price drop. I suppose technically, then, I wouldn't have jumped ship. As it was, I bought a Premium 360 for about $340 on sale all while people were paying upwards of $1000 for a PS3. It isn't that I am writing off the PS3, I very well may buy one down the road. Currently, however, there is no reason for me to buy one or to even justify spending $600 on one and while I'll never claim that I speak for the majority of consumers the PS3's sales numbers indicate that my sentiments are not alone.

That's a cop-out, Thunder. The meat of the question was whether you'd have bought a PS3 if it were the same price as a 360. $500 was just an example. It seems that your only beef with the PS3 is it's price. I agree, the hefty sum is enough to scare off a huge number of former PS2 users... but its also an escape being taken by the XBox 360 camp. An increase in price doesn't make the item any less impressive.

An example would be somebody claiming that they prefer Big Macs (which are about $1) over roast duck at a nice French restaurant (which, according to my experience 3 weeks ago, was $55). When you take price out of the equation, the better choice is clearly the duck over the Big Mac. The same holds true for the PS3 and the XBox. If potential buyers were given all the information about both systems and knew nothing about the price of either, I'll bet you 99 people out of 100 would tell you that the PS3 is a better system.

I'll reitterate my question for the final time (and I'll try to be careful about how I word it): If the PS3 and the XBox 360 both cost the same amount of money, which would be the better system?

Thunder wrote:This goes into other points - namely you do get more out of the box with a PS3 than a 360, but it'll cost you. The lack of an option is what is a drawback on Sony's part. A Blu Ray player does cost $400. But I don't want to pay $400 for one, nor do I want to pay $200 dollars for one because DVD is still the standard movie format and I am content with it. When I don't become content with it, and the industry makes a choice between Blu Ray and HD DVD, then I'll go out and get one for a lot less. In the meantime I'll be enjoying the games I got from the money I saved of not buying a movie player I wanted. Here is a fair question: Would you have bought a Blu Ray player if it didn't come with the PS3?

Absolutely not. But after watching several new movies on Blue Ray, I can definately confirm that the quality far outranks any DVD (or even HD-DVD) that I've ever seen. It's a nice perk that I'm, ultimately, glad to have... but it definately made no difference to me when I was purchasing my game system.

Thunder wrote:I have to contest the point of picking better titles to develop. Sony has had very an equal amount of first party titles that have been hits. Comparing their titles to Microsoft's team of in house developers you pretty much come up with SOCOM and Gran Turismo versus Halo and Forza. I'd say that's about a draw. Everything else has been third party and Sony has fallen out of favor with many developers due to the difficulty to easily make games for the PS3. Every big title by third part studios to hit the PS3 so far were developed for the 360 then ported over: Call of Duty 3, Elder Scrolls, and every next gen sports game to date. You can't take advantage of a machine's attrubutes if you don't program for it. Having better hardware doesn't always guarentee you to get the best games or the best sales (just look at what the Wii is doing to both of these systems). Either way, Sony has to reprove to me and other people that they will continue to have a stranglehold on great games in order to justify the $600 price tag. Until then, I don't think it has a great case on the 360. But time will tell

See, when I was referring to the games, I was referring to Sony's ability to snag amazing 3rd party developers. Its no secret that Sony (up until God of War) wasn't any good at producing 1st party games. Grand Turismo was pretty much it, besides the old school MLB '99 game I used to play on my original Playstation.

In other words, Sony has a better eye for talent. The original XBox was good at using Microsoft's giant pockets to seduce a lot of Sony's 3rd party games (Odd World, Crash Bandicoot, even Metal Gear at one point). But Sony has always had the edge, in terms of an eye for talent.

To relate it to sports, I'd say that Sony is more like the Oakland A's (who have amazing eyes for talent and can find gems hidden in the rough), whereas Microsoft is more like the New York Yankees (who simply buy off the biggest names on the market). Personally, I'd rather be apart of the camp that's traditionally been the most innovative, ground-breaking company in video game history.

That may be a cop out answer but it was in response to a straw man question.

I'll answer your revised question straight out though, even though it doesn't have much to do with the question at hand since price is always a factor (otherwise we all would have grown up on Atari Jaguars) and what hardware is in a system does not make the system - the games, support, and other features come into play.

If the PS3 and the XBox 360 both cost the same amount of money, which would be the better system?

The better system would be the PS3. It's power is more potent and is loaded with a next gen disc player.

If the current games available were a part of the question then it would be the 360, until of course the price line hits a certain point. And in reality that is just as large a part as the price issue I have, although it is subject more to the idea of taste than a cold hard number is.

Back to the question, however, consumer choice is never in the vacuum known as "if all things cost the same" and utility between options comes into play as well. For instance, a more practical view would be which system would you buy if they moth cost $100, $200, $300, and so forth. I'd probably buy both up until about $400 to $450, at which point I would probably only buy one or the neither, depending on if it is just the system being examined or the peripherals/games as well.

Game wise we could go back and forth on this but nobody will know for sure who will win in the end. It isn't really a matter of eye talent, which is why I can't buy the A's/Yankees comparison. It is more like the Yankees vs. the Yankees, with each team relying on player relations to attract the talent. I just believe that Microsoft will do a better job than Sony going forward at attracting a large number of games, but who knows. Eaither way, everytime I say Halo 3 you can say MGS4. Everytime you say God of War 3 I can say Gears of War 2 and this can go on with Blue Dragon, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy et cetera.

In short, I would say that my beef with the PS3 isn't so much that it is a bad system or that it won't be a good system in the future (either on its own or compared to the 360), it is just that I have no real reason to buy one now or in the near future at the price they are selling it. By the time it might be worth it for me to buy one to compliment my other systems it may be at $500.

If the PS3 and the XBox 360 both cost the same amount of money, which would be the better system?

The better system would be the PS3. It's power is more potent and is loaded with a next gen disc player.

That's all I wanted to hear.

See, to me, money was not an issue when purchasing a video game system. I was 20 or 21 when I got it. That's the perfect age; old enough to have a job where I'm capable of dropping a ton of money on my indulgements, but young enough to where I don't have a car payment, a house payment, kids, a wife, ect, ect to worry about as well. The majority of what I make is savings and spending money, therefore I could afford to splurge on (what I estimated to be) the better system. I can totally sympathize with other people who won't (or can't) drop that much money on a video game hobby, but I'm still unwilling to accept that it's the inferior system with all the extra advantages it comes standard with.

As far as games go, as you eloquently put it, we can argue about that until the cows come home. But the PS3 hasn't even been released for 9 months yet, so its futile to try and evaluate the entire system's genre of video games based on less than a year on the market. Its useless to judge a system when it hasn't even released any of its trademark classics yet (Metal Gear, GTA, GoW, FF, ect). So far, all Sony's been doing is experimenting with games like Resistance.

The only conclusive evidence between Sony and Microsoft occured with last generation software, where the PS2 clearly defeated the overhyped Xbox. Prior to that, Sony (as an underdog) and the original Playstation defeated the Sega Saturn and the N64. Thus far, Sony's had an amazing track record when it comes to picking out 3rd party games from relatively new developers, as well as valued veteran companies like Konami and Capcom. I'm confident that Sony will continue to dominate the video game market as the PS3 becomes more accessable to more people. As it stands, its a damn good system with a host of fun games to play. Some people are disappointed that the PS3 didn't revolutionize gaming out of the box. I'm not. I see the PS3 for what it is: the current equal to the 360, with the potential to leave it in the dust in as little as one holiday season.

But, as Dubs4life said earlier, we'll have to revisit this topic in a few months to truly get a better conversation. Right now, the PS3 is still a baby.

I can agree with that. No one system is going to be the end all of any discussion between what people should by. if money isn't a factor, then the PS3 is the system for you (although if money is no issue then why not get a 360 and a Wii as well?). And this won't be settled in any reasonable way until launch day of the PS4, Xbox 720, and Nintendo Zii.

I do contend, however, that the past battle Microsoft and Sony offers no real evidence between which system will turn out better this time around. The Celtics beat up on the East in the 80s but that didn't mean that they'd dominate after that. I do think it is interesting that the sounder and earlier released PS2 crushed the "overhyped" Xbox considering the roles have been reversed this time around.

I think the 360 was popular because of it's community. The way their online gaming is set up attracts so many kids, teens, and hell, even grown men. I've never seen or heard about the PS3's online gaming. Is it the same as PS2 as in it's free? Or is it similar to Xbox Live now?

xbaywarrior wrote:I think the 360 was popular because of it's community. The way their online gaming is set up attracts so many kids, teens, and hell, even grown men. I've never seen or heard about the PS3's online gaming. Is it the same as PS2 as in it's free? Or is it similar to Xbox Live now?

Its definately free, but it already has a ton of users. Give it another year and it'll be as popular as XBox Live (hopefully, they keep it free, though).